Mahasamund (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:36237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5838 of 2025 Chiranjiv Sidar S/o Prithvi Singh Sidar, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Chakarda, Police Station- Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.). ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant For Non-Applicant : :
Legal Reasoning
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of 4 the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed." 7. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and further considering the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS and the above submissions, as the prosecution witnesses have been examined including the victim and turned hostile, the same cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail further the trial is in progress, thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Chiranjiv Sidar filed under Section 483 of the BNSS., involved in Crime No. 252/2024 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)m, 87, 296 and 115(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously within a 5 period of three months from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal
Arguments
Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 252/2024 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)m, 87, 296 and 115(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a report 2 before the concerned police station stating therein that the applicant told the victim that she should leave her husband Chaman Chauhan and should come with him. The victim was separated with her husband based on social divorce and was staying at her maternal house. On 10.07.2024, when there was no one present in the house, the applicant came there and proposed for marriage and thereafter, he committed rape on her. Thereafter, he established physical relationship with her multiple times. When the victim told the applicant for marriage, he avoided her. On 19.09.2024, when the victim had gone to celebrate Vishwakarma Jayanti, there also the applicant tried physical relationship, upon this, when the victim refused, he assaulted her as such upon such basis, the victim lodged an FIR against the applicant for the alleged commission of offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The victim is a major lady and she was married woman with Chaman Chauhan. He further submits that she took social divorce from her husband and thereafter entered into a relationship with the present applicant and further there is some delay in lodging the FIR for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered. The prosecution has examined the victim and her mother and her father and they have not supported the prosecution case and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and the conclusion of 3 the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage, hence he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of X Vs. State of Rajasthan and another in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 decided on 27-11-2024 has observed in the said order that.- "14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused." 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.”